Zoological institutions
in the Middle East
and potential of a regional zoo
association
Zoological institutions in the Middle East and
potential of a regional zoo association
Jonas Livet 851231001
jonaslivet@wanadoo.fr
Supervision Netherlands:
Hans Bezuijen
Tine Griede
Final Thesis – Bachelor Wildlife Management
Van Hall Larenstein, Leeuwarden
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Back in November 2008, when I flew for the first time to the Middle East, at the start of a four-month internship in an animal breeding centre nearby Dubai, I knew quite nothing about this region and what I would find over there. During the following months and by travelling in the Arabian Peninsula, I discovered many zoological institutions and many various new challenges. I had fruitful exchanges and discussions with many local zoo professionals involved on site, and especially about the existing collaborations and a possible regional zoo association, which did not exist yet. The combination of my interests for this region, the zoological institutions and the conservation of biodiversity with this possible wish to start a regional zoo association lead to this thesis project.
I hope I have been able to make my contribution through this project and that this will help to start an organization which could further improve the advancement of zoological institutions in the Middle East and their involvement in global conservation.
I would like to acknowledge particularly all the zoo professionals working in the Middle East. I appreciate very much to have met a lot of them in their institutions and their regular help and support in this project. All their experiences and examples have influenced my own career.
The institutions which took the efforts to fill in and to send back the questionnaire deserve a strong thank from me and the zoo community in the Middle East.
My internship in the Breeding Centre for Endangered Arabian Wildlife (BCEAW) in Sharjah from November 2008 to February 2009 gave me a first insight in the zoo world of the Middle East. Without this experience, this thesis project would have never started. All my thanks to the team of the BCEAW. Mrs. Tine Griede and Mr. Hans Bezuijen, from Van Hall Larenstein, accepted to supervise me for this project and I will always be very grateful for their support, advices and patience face to my motivation. Their supervision was much important to go through all the obstacles and difficulties. Thanks so much.
Finally, I would like to add a strong thanks to my parents, ces mécènes méconnus, who support and accept my fascination of animals since my early childhood.
Jonas Livet Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, March 2010
SUMMARY
Zoos and aquaria are places where animals are maintained in captivity for different purposes. Modern zoos have set up main roles which integrate conservation, education, research and recreation (Hediger, 1969). To help to reach these goals zoological institutions have started to organize themselves among organizations. These zoo associations are found now all around the world and gather zoos, aquaria and similar facilities in strong network communities with clear goals. Nevertheless one specific part of the world, namely the Middle East, never came through the process of the creation of a zoo association. However zoos and aquaria in this region face the same missions, challenges, problems and limitations as anywhere else in the world.
The goal of this research is to give an overview of the current situation of zoos and aquaria in the Middle East and to assess the feasibility of creating a regional zoo association. The interests, the expectations and the possible investments of local zoological institutions were examined and analysed. Three main instruments of research to reach the goal were used: Literature research, Questionnaire and Observations.
A total of 69 confirmed zoological institutions were found in the region. From these, 17 are ‘Zoos’, 8 ‘Aquaria’, 3 ‘Dolphinaria’, 13 ‘Private collections’, 10 ‘Breeding centres’, 8 ‘Minizoos’ and 10 ‘Others’. Each category has its own characteristics and developments, which are briefly mentioned in Chapter 3 and Appendix 2.
The potential of a regional zoo association in the Middle East is assessed through a survey realized via a specific questionnaire (see Appendix 3). This questionnaire was distributed by email, fax and paper. It was possible to reach 49 institutions out of the 69 existing in the region. A total of 16 full filled in questionnaires were obtained.
Conservation and research are two main fields in which zoological institutions from this region are actively involved: 63% of the surveyed institution participates in conservation in situ and 88% states that they are doing research. Education is less developed with only 56% of the institutions involved but a large part of the institutions in this region are not opened to the general public.
Nine zoological institutions in the Middle East are already members of international zoo associations, mainly based in other regions. Furthermore seven zoological institutions within the Middle East are members of the International Species Information System (ISIS).
Without a structural framework, a certain number of collaborations happened already among zoological institutions in the region. Most of exchanges are done with institutions situated in The United Arab Emirates.
All the surveyed institutions are interested to join a potential regional zoo association in the Middle East. They expect to gain benefit from it mainly in terms of ‘Exchange of information’, ‘Exchange of animals’, ‘Conference/workshop’ and ‘International collection with worldwide association’.
The surveyed institutions are willing to support with a high participation most of the possible fields, as ‘Exchange of information’, ‘Exchange of animals’, ‘Conference/workshop’ and ‘Technical assistance’. Active involvement in breeding programs, conservation and research committees appear to be the most intended.
From the brief analysis of zoological collections in the Middle East and the results from the survey realized, a clear potential for a regional zoo association could be drawn. The foundation of such an association requests a process through different steps and a strong basis structure which will allow further development and success for the mutual enrichment and advancement of the members. Whatever the impetus, the decisions made by the founders during the start-up period of the new organization will have a profound impact on its success, effectiveness and longevity (Knowledge Center Staff, 2006). General recommendations about the starting steps of a regional zoo association in the Middle East are given in the last chapter of the report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...6
Research goal ... 8
Research questions ... 8
2. STUDY DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTS OF RESEARCH ...9
Literature research ... 9
Questionnaire ... 10
Observations ... 11
3. RESULTS: CURRENT SITUATION OF ZOOS AND AQUARIA IN THE MIDDLE EAST ……….12
Inventory of zoological institutions in the Middle East ... 12
Zoological institutions in the Middle East and their characteristics ... 15
Zoological institutions in the Middle East and existing international associations ... 18
4. RESULTS: POTENTIAL OF A REGIONAL ZOO ASSOCIATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST ……….19
Basic information about the surveyed institutions ... 22
Characteristics of the surveyed institutions ... 23
Current activities of the surveyed institutions ... 24
Current exchanges between the surveyed institutions ... 26
Potential of a zoo association in the Middle East ... 27
5. CONCLUSION ...30
6. DISCUSSION ...32
REFERENCES ...35 APPENDIX 1: Inventory of zoological institutions in the Middle East linked with the realized survey
………...I APPENDIX 2: Inventory of zoological institutions in the Middle East with basic information for each institution ... V APPENDIX 3: Questionnaire sent to zoological institutions situated in the Middle East .XXIX
1.
INTRODUCTION
Zoos and aquaria are places where animals are maintained in captivity for different purposes. Modern zoos have set up main roles which integrate conservation, education, research and recreation (Hediger, 1969). To help to reach these goals zoological institutions have started to organize themselves among organizations. These zoo associations are found now all around the world and gather zoos, aquaria and similar facilities in strong network communities with clear goals.
The history of formal international cooperation among zoos is a young one, dating back to the earliest efforts in the first part of the 20th century. Traditionally, zoos tended to operate as isolated islands filled with exotic animals, and competition was keen to keep the rarest, most unusual animals alive – when another zoo could not. This stance undermined attempts at collaboration and cooperation. However there were informal associations among zoos and, from the middle of the 19th century, European zoo directors met regularly, especially at the time of wild animal sales, which took place at Zoo Antwerpen (Belgium). After the World War I, it was recognized that a dialogue among zoos in different countries might help improve the health and longevity of the captive animal collections. (Fisher, 2001)
That was the basis of the foundation of the first international organization: the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens (IUDZG) was created in 1935 and became later on the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA)1. Its modern mission is to provide leadership and support for zoos, aquaria, and partner organisations, of the world in animal care and welfare, conservation of biodiversity, environmental education and global sustainability (WAZA, 2003). In North America, the early goal of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)2, created in 1924 as the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA), was to provide a professional forum for information exchange among zoo and aquarium professionals (Butler, 2001). Nowadays the AZA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of accredited zoos and aquaria in the areas of animal care, wildlife conservation, education and science (AZA, no year). In Europe, the need for a global zoo association appeared in the mid-1980s. At that time the necessity for a closer cooperation between zoos became obvious after the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)3 came into force in 1975. Suddenly zoos saw themselves cut off from the import of wild-caught animals, the trade of which now was strictly regulated. Zoos had to breed animals they wanted to exhibit and to build up self-sustaining populations of animals in order to become independent from import of wild animals. Moreover the political wish to create a legislative European zoo directive pushed the European zoos to organize themselves and formed a joined body to face this situation. (Nogge, 2003)
The European Community Association of Zoos and Aquaria (ECAZA) was born in 1988. Later changed in 1992 to the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA)4, this organization has now for mission to facilitate cooperation within the European zoo and aquarium community towards the goals of education, research and conservation (EAZA, 2009).
At the same time dozens of similar associations, both at national and international level, were created all around the world.
1 http://www.waza.org/ 2 http://www.aza.org/ 3 http://www.cites.org/ 4 http://www.eaza.net/
The Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria (ARAZPA)5 was established in 1990 to link zoos and aquaria in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific in a cooperative regional network for wildlife conservation (ARAZPA, no year).
The African Association of Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZAB)6 was formed in 1989 as an organization aimed at representing the interests of bona fide zoos and aquaria on the African continent (PAAZAB, no year).
The South Asian Zoo Association for Regional Cooperation (SAZARC), created in 2000, has a purpose to improve communication and cooperation between zoos within the country, between zoos of the region and internationally as well as to set up standards for animal care, organize training in zoo management, etc. (Zoo Outreach Organisation, no year).
Examples of zoological associations are numerous and fully spread over the world. Nevertheless one specific part of the world, namely the Middle East, never came through the process of the creation of a zoo association. However zoos and aquaria in this region face the same missions, challenges, problems and limitations as anywhere else in the world.
As in other regions, breeding programs are currently on the edge to be more and more fully developed in the Middle East, especially for indigenous species and subspecies. One of the first efforts was made for the Arabian leopard (Panthera pardus nimr), classified Critically Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2008a). Back in 1985 a first breeding group was established in the Oman Mammal Breeding Centre (Oman) (Spalton, 2006) but it is only since a few years that international collaboration has started to be successful and that breeding is more effective. Another Endangered local species (IUCN, 2008b), the Arabian tahr (Arabitragus jayakari) is maintained in different collections in the Middle East and close cooperation for captive breeding could rise the chance to save this animal from extinction.
The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group7 (CBSG, called in the past the Captive Breeding Specialist Group) considers that the management of species populations requires cooperation and collaboration between institutions (Jong, no year).
One of the main reasons of the creation of a European zoo association at the beginning of the 1990s was the pressure due to animal welfare groups and the political wish to create formal zoo legislation (Nogge, 2003). Such a situation is slowly appearing in the Middle East as well. Setting up a zoo legislation and starting formal inspection by a governmental body was already under discussion in The United Arab Emirates.
Nowadays, the critical role of zoos and aquaria within conservation is fully recognized by the IUCN. Zoos and aquaria are in a unique position: that of providing conservation in a genuinely integrated way. The major goal of these institutions should be to integrate all aspects of their work with conservation activities. The fundamental elements of each organization’s culture should be the values of sustainability and conservation, and social and environmental responsibility. (WAZA, 2005) The same applies for all zoological institutions in the Middle East. The situation in this part of the world is even more especially critical as a unique fauna and flora biodiversity still exists in this region and that concrete actions have to be taken now before it is too late. One of the facilities in The United Arab Emirates, namely the Breeding Centre for Endangered Arabian Wildlife (BCEAW)8 and its board the Environment and Protected Areas Authority (EPAA)9, organize each year a Conservation 5 http://www.arazpa.org.au/ 6 http://www.paazab.com/ 7 http://www.cbsg.org/ 8 http://www.breedingcentresharjah.com/ 9 http://www.epaa-shj.gov.ae/
Workshop for the Fauna of Arabia10, at which many field researchers, scientists and zoo experts take part. Other exemplary examples exist in the region but mainly managed, funded and followed by one zoological institution at the time. Further exchanges and collaboration on this matter would probably be beneficial for all parties and for conservation ex and in situ.
The educational role of zoos and aquaria is to interpret living collections to attract, inspire and enable people from all walks of life to act positively for conservation (WAZA, 2005). Zoological institutions in the Middle East, at least the ones opened to the public, have to deal with this important goal of modern zoos as well.
The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy (WZACS)11 strongly recommends that zoo and aquarium partnerships and networks have to be established or strengthened at local, national, regional and international levels (WAZA, 2005). Creating a zoological association may be time and effort consuming but would rise to a better organized local network which would be much beneficial for all the institutions involved. Collaboration in various matters, as exchanges of information, experiences, animals, would be simplified and more accessible to the majority of zoological institutions part of the network. Furthermore an organized body is always stronger to face any global challenge as e.g. the creation of legislation and its implementation or a disease outbreak.
Research goal
Considering the framework of the development of zoo associations around the world and the few examples and challenges in the Middle East presented above, the goal of the current research is to give an overview of the current situation of zoos and aquaria in the Middle East and to assess the feasibility of creating a regional zoo association. The interests, the expectations and the possible investments of local zoological institutions will be examined and analysed.
Research questions
1. What is the current situation of zoos and aquaria in the Middle East?
- How many zoological institutions exist in the Middle East and which are they?
- What type of institutions are they, what are their characteristics and how are they organized?
- What kind of activities do the regional zoological institutions realize? 2. What is the potential of a regional zoo association in the Middle East?
- What are the existing national and international collaborations within the zoos in the Middle East?
- What would be the expectations and the intentions of the local zoological institutions about a regional zoo association?
- What are these institutions willing to invest in such an association?
10
http://www.biodiversityconference.com/
2.
STUDY DESIGN AND INSTRUMENTS OF RESEARCH
All the zoological institutions of the Middle East represent the research population of this project. This includes all types of facilities, opened for the public or not, e.g. zoos, aquaria, dolphinaria, private collections, breeding centres and minizoos.
The Middle East itself has no clear boundaries or geographical limits (Andover, 2000). For the scope of this study twelve countries were considered: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, The United Arab Emirates and Yemen (see Figure 1). The Gaza Strip, Israel and The West Bank were not included.
Figure 2.1: Map of the Middle East (Source http://middleeastfacts.com/middle-east-maps.php)
Three main instruments of research to reach the goal set for this study (see Chapter 1 Introduction) were used:
- Literature research - Questionnaire - Observations
Literature research
No full list of zoological institutions in the Middle East was available. The first task to answer the research questions was therefore to establish a list as exhaustive as possible, mainly through literature research. The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) maintained an inventory of its members around the world extended to some other zoological collections as well. This list was
available online at http://www.waza.org/network/index.php?main=zoos until the end of 2009. The International Zoo Yearbook is an annual international publication for the exchange of information on the role of zoos in the conservation of biodiversity, species and habitats (ZSL, no year). A list of Zoos and Aquariums of the World is regularly included in this publication. The last edition of this list dated back from 2009 in the Volume 43 (ZSL, no year). A combination of the information from these two recognized lists forms the basis of the exhaustive wanted list. Diverse private websites (e.g. http://www.goodzoos.com/, http://www.leszoosdanslemonde.com/, http://www.wzd.cz/, http://www.zoos-worldwide.de/, http://www.zooarchives.50megs.com/, etc.) introduce as well lists of zoos around the world. Nevertheless data from such sources has to be checked and crossed between different lists to assure a good level of reliability. Local press and newspapers (e.g. The National12 in The United Arab Emirates) publish often articles about zoos and local institutions which may lead to the inclusion of new institutions into the working list.
Finally the most powerful tool to list the zoological institutions in the Middle East was to ask directly zoos and aquaria from the region. By working in the region they know the best about potential colleagues in the neighbourhood. Combining all the information obtained from these different sources led to an almost exhaustive list of the zoological institutions in the Middle East.
The inventory of the zoos, aquaria and other zoological institutions in the Middle East was completed by contact details, basic information and the type of each institution as well as the organisation structure. Type of institution includes ‘Zoo’, ‘Aquarium’, ‘Dolphinarium’, ‘Private collection’, ‘Breeding centre’, ‘Minizoo’ and ‘Other’.
Primary information as the type of institution and the organization structure were found through literature research. The data available in the International Zoo Yearbook were especially of major interest in this matter. If released the website of each institution often includes basic information which is necessary to answer this research question.
Questionnaire
Literature research is an important first step. Nonetheless basic information about the majority of institutions in the Middle East was not available in published material. Therefore direct contact with each institution concerned remains the only way to collect these data. Correspondence by postal mails or emails is the most efficient possibility to request this information if not found in preliminary desk research. To assure the data were collected in a proper, effective and objective way, the request was organized through a questionnaire. As much as possible closed questions with multiple choices were used in order to assure a consistency in the information gathered. An overview of the questionnaire used is included in Appendix 3.
The questionnaire was distributed to 49 zoological institutions within the Middle East. This was realized by email, with the help of the online tool SurveyMonkey13, by fax or directly on paper. SurveyMonkey is an online survey tool that enables people of all experience levels to create their own surveys quickly and easily.
The activities and roles of modern zoos may be divided into four main fields: conservation, education, research and recreation (Hediger, 1969). How and at which level zoos and similar facilities in the Middle East participate in these fields was asked through the questionnaire prepared. Short questions about actions realized were included.
12
http://www.thenational.ae/
The answers to the questionnaire helped to assess the current levels of collaboration within the zoos of the region and the potential of a future zoo association.
Observations
Observations by visiting 34 zoological institutions in the Middle East completed the two methods mentioned above.
The missions and vision of each zoological institution are of much importance to understand the situation and the possible further developments of zoos (Griede, 2008) and potential collaborations within the frame of zoo associations. For a certain number of European and American zoos their missions are available and highlighted directly on their website. As most of the institutions of the Middle East do not have such a communication tool, it was necessary to ask them directly for this information. This was done through the questionnaire already mentioned above.
Nevertheless to have a clear and better overview of the situation, the missions and the values of the main zoological institutions in the region, physical visits on site represented the best option. These visits led to a better understanding of each institution, their particular challenges and possibilities.
3.
RESULTS: CURRENT SITUATION OF ZOOS AND AQUARIA IN
THE MIDDLE EAST
Before linking existing zoological institutions within the framework of a regional zoo association, it is important to know which zoological institutions are found in the region. The first goal of this research was to give an overview of the current situation of zoos and aquaria in the Middle East.
Inventory of zoological institutions in the Middle East
An inventory of zoological institutions in the Middle East was compiled following the process described in the second chapter of this report (see Chapter 2 Study design and instruments of research). This lead to a total of 69 confirmed zoological institutions in the region. These were classified in seven categories: ‘Zoo’, ‘Aquarium’, ‘Dolphinarium’, ‘Private collection’, ‘Breeding centre’, ‘Minizoo’ and ‘Other’. An eighth category, named ‘Lack of data’, was created for the facilities for which not enough current data was found. The institutions from this last category were not considered in the final total.
A short definition of each category used follows:
‘Zoo’: institution opened to the public which exhibits a certain number of wild species of animals. Display of these animals is the primary mission of the institution.
‘Aquarium’: institution opened to the public which exhibits a certain number of wild species of animals from marine habitats, with a focus on fish. Display of these animals is the primary mission of the institution.
‘Dolphinarium’: institution opened to the public which exhibits marine mammals. Display of these animals is the primary mission of the institution.
‘Private collection’: collection of wild animals maintained in private hands for personal interest without being visible for the general public.
‘Breeding centre’: collection of wild animals maintained for breeding purposes without being visible for the general public. The breeding may be managed for commercial or conservation goals. ‘Minizoo’: institution opened to the public which exhibits a small number of wild species of animals (basically less than 10 species). This includes as well small aquarium with less than 10 major tanks. Such institutions are often part of wider facilities, as shopping mall, theme park, museum, etc.
‘Other’: this category includes other possible zoological institutions which do not fit in any of the above categories. This may be butterflies’ park, birds of prey show, specialized reptiles park, consultant with captive animals, etc.
‘Lack of data’: this category includes institutions for which data was missing. Current existence or special focus of the institution was not confirmed or found.
It is clear that some institutions may be included in several categories. For example, some zoos do include facilities for fishes, which mean that they are at the same time a ‘Zoo’ and an ‘Aquarium’. Alike, some aquariums are combined with major facilities for dolphins or other marine mammals and should therefore be considered as ‘Aquarium’ and ‘Dolphinarium’. To simplify and clarify the classification, only the main category was specified for each zoological institution. Therefore, a zoo with an aquarium will be defined as a ‘Zoo’ and a major aquarium with some marine mammals as an ‘Aquarium’. If the mammals’ facilities were predominant in this last case, the chosen category would have been ‘Dolphinarium’.
Table 3.1: Numbers of zoological institutions in the Middle East classified by category and country
Zoo Aquarium Dolphinarium Private
collection
Breeding
centre Minizoo Other Total
Lack of data Bahrain 1 1 1 3 1 Iran 2 1 3 12 Iraq 1 1 1 Jordan 1 1 1 3 2 Kuwait 1 1 1 1 4 Lebanon 0 4 Oman 1 1 1 1 4 Qatar 1 1 1 1 4 Saudi Arabia 4 2 6 2 Syria 1 1 The UAE 4 5 1 12 4 6 6 38 Yemen 2 2 Total 17 8 3 13 10 8 10 69 22
Some observations can be drawn from Table 3.1. First of all, 38 institutions out of the 69 found in the region are situated in The United Arab Emirates. This represents more than half (55%) of the facilities within the region. The eleven other countries have from 0 to a maximum of only 6 zoological institutions (9% of the total). Furthermore, ten countries out of the twelve considered have less than 4 institutions (6% of the total). Only one country in the Middle East, namely Lebanon, does not count any zoological institution. These results show an important bias towards The United Arab Emirates.
As seen in Figure 3.1, of the 69 zoological institutions in the Middle East,
3 ‘Dolphinaria’, 13 ‘Private collections’, 10 ‘Breeding centres’, 8 ‘Minizoos’ and 10 ‘Others’
Figure 3.1: Total n
‘Zoos’ are relatively equally represented in nine
these countries. For the six remaining categories, there is a strong bias towards The United Arab Emirates which explains the statement above. 63
‘Dolphinaria’, 40% of the ‘Breeding centres and more especially 92% of the ‘P
This bias is surely not based on a geographical reason as The Uni 1.5% of the total land surface of the twelve considered countries ( (United Nations Statistics Division, 2007)
Arab Emirates only has 2.3% of the total population from this region million) (United Nations Development
Tourism may be part of the explanations as
important touristic hub. 5.9 million international tourists arrived in The United Arab 2003 (World Tourism Organization, 2006).
the other countries in this region but the origin and the purpose of these tourists have an important part to play as well.
Breeding Minizoo
zoological institutions in the Middle East, 17 are ‘Zoos’ ‘Private collections’, 10 ‘Breeding centres’, 8 ‘Minizoos’ and 10 ‘Others’
.1: Total numbers of zoological institutions within each category
atively equally represented in nine countries out of twelve, with 1
these countries. For the six remaining categories, there is a strong bias towards The United Arab Emirates which explains the statement above. 63% of the ‘Aquaria’ found in the region, 33% of the
reeding centres’, 75% of the ‘Minizoos’, 60% of the
‘Private collections’ are found in The United Arab Emirates.
This bias is surely not based on a geographical reason as The United Arab Emirates covers only of the twelve considered countries (83 600 km²
United Nations Statistics Division, 2007). The same is true in terms of population as 3% of the total population from this region (4.4 million ou Development Programme, 2009).
Tourism may be part of the explanations as The United Arab Emirates and especially Dubai is an 5.9 million international tourists arrived in The United Arab
2003 (World Tourism Organization, 2006). This number is relatively high compared to
the other countries in this region but the origin and the purpose of these tourists have an important Zoo 25% Aquarium 12% Dolphinarium 4% Private collection 19% Breeding Centre 14% Minizoo 12% Other 14%
are ‘Zoos’, 8 ‘Aquaria’, ‘Private collections’, 10 ‘Breeding centres’, 8 ‘Minizoos’ and 10 ‘Others’.
umbers of zoological institutions within each category
twelve, with 1 to 4 institutions in these countries. For the six remaining categories, there is a strong bias towards The United Arab found in the region, 33% of the , 60% of the ‘Other’ facilities are found in The United Arab Emirates.
ted Arab Emirates covers only 600 km² out of 5 452 953 km²) The same is true in terms of population as The United (4.4 million out of 191.4
The United Arab Emirates and especially Dubai is an 5.9 million international tourists arrived in The United Arab Emirates in This number is relatively high compared to the ones for the other countries in this region but the origin and the purpose of these tourists have an important
Zoological institutions in the Middle East and their characteristics
A complete inventory of the zoological institutions in the Middle East is included in Appendix 2. When available, this listing contains as well primary information for each institution. Full name of the institution is given as well as its category, completed by possible secondary category or details about the category used when necessary. Full address is followed by basic information as type of the organization, year of opening/creation, size, total number of species, total number of animals, species in each group (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes and invertebrates) and the percentage of species endangered within the collection. Finally the file for each institution is completed by the number of visitors per year (if the institution is opened to the public), the total number of staff, the number of staff working in the zoological department, details about the veterinary care and possible membership to existing international zoo associations.
The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy (WZACS) recognizes that integrated conservation activities will vary in different parts of the world because of cultural and social factors and the everyday reality of life. Furthermore cultural, economic and political factors will influence the emphasis placed upon the variety of environmental and conservation issues in zoos and aquaria in different parts of the world. (WAZA, 2005)
Therefore a primary background of each of the twelve countries considered for this research is also included in Appendix 2. This is done through five parameters: population, surface area, Human Development Index (HDI), HDI rank and international tourist arrival.
The geographical situation of the 69 zoological institutions in the region is illustrated in Figure 3.2 on an aerial view of the Arabian Peninsula.
‘Zoos’ in the Middle East have a relatively similar pattern as in other regions of the world. A large amount of them were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Among them, Dubai Zoo was opened in 1967, Kuwait Zoo in 1968, Al Ain Zoo in 1969 (renamed Al Ain Wildlife Park and Resort in 2009), Baghdad Zoo in 1971, Al Areen Wildlife Park and Reserve in Bahrain in 1975, etc. The two ‘Zoos’ in Yemen are particular as they were both opened in the 1990s, respectively in 1998 for Taiz Zoo and in 1999 for Sana'a Zoo. Most of these institutions have a governmental or municipal background. They have evolved throughout the decades and are still main facilities in the region.
Private owners created as well ‘Zoos’ but this appears to be on a limited scale. Two examples could be the Al Taraf Model Zoo in Saudi Arabia opened in 1996 and Kids Park Abu Dhabi in The United Arab Emirates opened in 2008.
The animals maintained in all these institutions are traditional with a large amount of species appreciated by visitors, as monkeys, big cats, giraffes, snakes, large birds, etc. Species originated from local regions are often exhibited as well, including a wide range of small mammals and birds from the desert. The Arabia's Wildlife Centre in Sharjah, linked with the Breeding Centre for Endangered Arabian Wildlife (BCEAW), exhibited a full set of the biodiversity from this part of the world, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes and invertebrates.
The size of ‘Zoos’ in the Middle East is relatively small, often ranging from one to five hectares with some exceptions. One of them is Al Ain Wildlife Park and Resort which is spreading on a total land of 900 hectares. This last one is undergoing major changes and a new master plan was decided with a reconversion in different phases planned to be inaugurated between 2011 and 2013.
Some ‘Zoos’ in the Middle East face problem with rescue animals even if they are not facilities planned to receive such. These animals often came from confiscation, especially at the borders. In this matter Dubai Zoo is particularly involved and a large majority of the almost one thousand animals maintained within the 1.7 ha of this zoo is rescued from various sources.
‘Aquaria’ represent another main category of zoological institutions opened to the public. This kind of institutions was mainly developed since the end of the 1990s, a trend which may be seen as well in other developing regions in the world. There are nevertheless some exceptions, especially based on scientific purposes, as the Marine Research Centre and Aquarium in Umm Al Quwain (The United Arab Emirates) opened in 1984 and the Aquatic Exhibition of Marine Living Species at Marine Science & Fisheries Center in Sidab (Oman) opened in 1986. The more recent ‘Aquaria’ are often linked with other facilities, as a hotel or a shopping mall. It is the case for the Burj Al Arab (luxury hotel opened in Dubai in 1999), the Dubai Aquarium & Underwater Zoo (opened in Dubai Mall in 2008 and initially named Dubai Aquarium & Discovery Centre) or Atlantis The Palm which is a combination of hotel, leisure park and zoological facilities opened in 2008. Three main ‘Aquaria’ were opened almost simultaneously in The United Arab Emirates in 2008: the Dubai Aquarium & Underwater Zoo, Atlantis The Palm and Sharjah Aquarium. Apart from this last one in Sharjah, most of the ‘Aquaria’ in the Middle East, especially the new ones, were created by private initiatives. They try to attract as many as possible visitors, especially with large and impressive tanks or iconic species. For example Dubai Aquarium & Underwater Zoo sets Guinness Record for the ‘World’s Largest Acrylic Panel’ with 32.88 metres wide by 8.3 metres high and 750 mm thick. The main tank in Atlantis The Palm, named The Ambassador Lagoon, contains more than 11 million litres of water and a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) is exhibited there since 2008.
There are currently three known ‘Dolphinaria’ in the Middle East and a fourth one included in Atlantis The Palm. As the ‘Aquaria’, these institutions are relatively young with the two most recent ones opened in The United Arab Emirates in 2008. Their importance varied from two humpbacked dolphins (Sousa plumbea) and one South-American sea lion (Otaria flavescens) at The Dolphin Resort in Bahrain up to thirty bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Atlantis The Palm. Breeding of dolphins is achieved in two institutions, Kish Dolphin Park in Iran and Atlantis The Palm.
Keeping wild animals in captivity for personal interest and prestige has a long history throughout time. ‘Private collections’ of wild animals from aristocracy or wealthy owners are known still to exist all around the world. Nevertheless the situation is even more developed in the Middle East, and especially in The United Arab Emirates. A few dozens of such collections probably exist in the region, from a few animals in a backyard up to a full collection as in traditional zoos or even several thousand specimens. Some of these ‘Private collections’ are well known, exchange animals between each other, are members of international zoo associations, participate actively in breeding programs, even welcome some school groups for educational tour, while some others are completely closed for any kind of cooperation and their existence is even kept confidential. Local owners often hired foreigners to manage their animal collections, professionals from Europe or Africa with a background experience about management of animals in captivity.
‘Breeding centres’ are found in many different countries in the Middle East. Their purposes and objectives are also various. Some are conservation oriented and concentrated especially on fauna from this region, from which some iconic species are the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), the Arabian leopard (Panthera pardus nimr) or the Arabian tahr (Arabitragus jayakari). One of these institutions, the Breeding Centre for Endangered Arabian Wildlife (BCEAW) in Sharjah, is combined with a ‘Zoo’ but all the others are closed for visitors. The Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation in Qatar, originally a private collection of the Sheikh Saoud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al Thani, has now extended its activities and breed successfully various species of African ungulates and endangered birds as the Spix’s macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii), a unique and special species which is considered extinct in the wild. Some ‘Breeding centres’ were founded more with commercial objectives. This is especially the case for falcons and birds of prey which represent a huge market within the Middle East. The Dubai Falcon Centre, Nad Al Shiba Avian Reproduction Research Centre, also situated in Dubai, and Pro Falcon in Al Ain are some institutions from this type. Nevertheless it is important to know that staffs from these facilities are deeply involved in research and/or education as in the Dubai Falcon Centre with the Birds of Prey Show.
The ‘Minizoos’ are a less homogeneous category. It includes a full range of small private zoos opened to the public, as the Al Dosary Zoo in Qatar or the Zoo from Nasir Khalifa Al Shamsy in Bidaa Bit Saud in Al Ain, limited collection of animals in municipal parks, education centres with lived animals or aquaria in shopping malls or museums.
‘Other’ institutions are relatively limited in the Middle East with some ten facilities from reptiles’ exhibition to tigers’ enclosure within the site of a theme park project. Two institutions are nevertheless of a special interest. The Dubai Desert Conservation Reserve (DDCR) is a 225 km² conservation protected area in which large herds of oryx and gazelles roam freely. The Arabian Wildlife Park on Sir Bani Yas Island offshore from The United Arab Emirates, previously a private collection, was reorganized since 2006. Attempts to release cheetahs with ungulates are currently underway there.
Zoological institutions in the Middle East and existing international associations
Nine zoological institutions in the Middle East (13% out of 69) are already members of international zoo associations, mainly based in other regions. The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) has two members in the region while the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) has four, including one full member and three associate members. One zoological institution is member of the South East Asian Zoos Association (SEAZA)14 and another one sent its application to become member of this organisation end of 2009. Finally one zoological institution is member of the International Zoo Educators Association (IZE)15.
Seven zoological institutions within the Middle East are already members of the International Species Information System (ISIS)16.
The International Species Information System is an international non-profit organization serving zoos and aquariums worldwide. It delivers and supports the world’s most current, comprehensive and reliable source of knowledge on animals and their environments for zoos, aquariums and related organizations to serve institutional, regional and global animal management and conservation goals (ISIS, 2009). It is not a standard zoo association but it is much related with international zoo collaboration. Furthermore some international association as the EAZA request that all their members take use of this global system (EAZA, no year).
14 http://www.seaza.org/ 15
http://www.izea.net/
4.
RESULTS: POTENTIAL OF A REGIONAL ZOO ASSOCIATION IN
THE MIDDLE EAST
The potential of a regional zoo association in the Middle East was assessed through a survey realized via a specific questionnaire (see Appendix 3). This questionnaire was distributed by email, fax and paper. It was possible to reach 49 institutions out of the 69 existing in the region (71%). A total of 23 replies were obtained from which 16 (70%) were full filled in questionnaires. The 7 replies which were not filled questionnaires were either clear statement about no interest or no possibility to take part in the survey or questionnaires which were not fully filled in (often only the first few questions). See Appendix 1 for a full list of zoological institutions in the Middle East and details about the ones which were contacted. Number of results sorted by category of the institutions and by countries can be seen in tables 4.1 and 4.2.
Table 4.1: Numbers of zoological institutions, questionnaires sent out and replies obtained classified by category of institution
Number of institutions
Questionnaires
sent out Total replies
Questionnaires filled in Zoo 17 12 3 2 Aquarium 8 8 4 1 Dolphinarium 3 3 0 0 Private collection 13 10 6 5 Breeding Centre 10 10 5 5 Minizoo 8 1 1 1 Other 10 5 4 2 Total 69 49 23 16
Table 4.2: Numbers of zoological institutions, questionnaires sent out and replies obtained classified by country
Number of institutions
Questionnaires
sent out Total replies
Questionnaires filled in Bahrain 3 3 1 0 Iran 3 2 0 0 Iraq 1 0 0 0 Jordan 3 3 2 2 Kuwait 4 3 1 0 Lebanon 0 0 0 0 Oman 4 3 2 1 Qatar 4 2 1 1 Saudi Arabia 6 4 0 0 Syria 1 0 0 0 The UAE 38 27 16 12 Yemen 2 2 0 0 Total 69 49 23 16
There are no major differences between the number of questionnaires sent out per category and the number of institutions per category apart for the categories ‘Minizoo’ and ‘Other’. For both these categories, a relatively low number of the existing institutions was approached: 13% for ‘Minizoo’ and 50% for ‘Other’. For the five remaining categories, at least 71% and up to 100% for three of them were contacted.
The trend of the received questionnaires filled in is different with a relatively high number of answers obtained from ‘Private collections’ and ‘Breeding centres’. On the contrary, only two questionnaires filled in were obtained from ‘Zoos’ which represent 13% on the total of questionnaires obtained. This is a different picture from the 17 existing ‘Zoos’, which represent 25% of the total institutions in the region.
Figure 4.1: Total number of institutions in the region, numbers of questionnaires sent out and questionnaires filled in for each category
Comparing the numbers of replies and filled in questionnaires obtained to the number of questionnaires sent out may give some indications about the willingness and the interest of each category of institutions (see Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1). A particular low result is the one of the ‘Zoos’ with only 25% of replies on the questionnaires sent out and even more only 17% (2 out of 12 sent) questionnaires filled in. Another fact is the very high response trend of the ‘Private collections’ with 60% of replies and 50% of questionnaires filled in and the one of the ‘Breeding centres’ with 50% of replies and 50% of questionnaires filled in. Half of the ‘Aquaria’ contacted did send a reply but only one institution filled a questionnaire. Finding contact details for the institutions classified ‘Minizoo’ proved to be difficult and only 1 out of 8 (13% which is the lowest percentage for any of the category) was contacted. This institution did answer and filled in a questionnaire.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Zoo Aquarium Dolphinarium Private collection
Breeding Centre
Minizoo Other
From a similar classification of the number of institutions, the number of questionnaires sent out and the number of questionnaires filled in, this time classified by country (see Figure 4.2), a clear predominance of The United Arab Emirates is observed with 55% of the existing institutions and 55% of the questionnaires sent out. This is even more strongly marked with 75% (12 out of 16) of the questionnaires filled in for institutions situated in The United Arab Emirates.
Figure 4.2: Total number of institutions, numbers of questionnaires sent out and questionnaires filled in for each country
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Bahrain Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia
Syria The UAE
Yemen
The results presented in the coming chapters are based on the sixteen obtained questionnaires. These institutions represent 23% of the total number of known institutions in the Middle East and this should be kept in mind. The results are classified following the order of the main parts of the questionnaire (see Appendix 3).
Basic information about the surveyed institutions
The zoological institutions which did reply to the survey with a full filled in questionnaires are: 2 ‘Zoos’, 1 ‘Aquarium’, 5 ‘Private collections’, 5 ‘Breeding centres’, 1 ‘Minizoo’ and 2 ‘Others’ (see also Figure 4.1).
A very high number of these institutions are situated in The United Arab Emirates (12 institutions, 75%). The four others are found in Jordan (2 institutions), Oman and Qatar (1 institution for each) (see also Figure 4.2).
Full contact details, both postal and electronic, were obtained for these institutions. Ten of them have a website currently available while one is planning to develop such a tool in the coming months. Nine of the institutions surveyed (56%) are managed within a private ownership, five (31%) are part of a governmental body, one is organized within a cooperative society and the last one is a non-governmental organization.
Nine of the institutions (56%) have mission statement and a vision clearly defined and available and one institution is working on this topic. The six remaining institutions did not provide any information to this question.
The mission statements and visions provided were analysed keeping in mind five important concepts of the roles of modern zoological institutions: ‘Conservation’, ‘Breeding’, ‘Research’, ‘Education’ and ‘Entertainment’. Five out of nine (55%) mention ‘Conservation’, four (44%) ‘Breeding’, one (11%) ‘Research’, three (33%) ‘Education’ and two (22%) ‘Entertainment’ (see Figure 4.3). Only one institution (11% out of the nine) has three of the concepts in its mission statement and vision while almost half of them (4 institutions, 44%) has only one of the concepts.
Figure 4.3: Number of mission statement of the surveyed institution which includes the selected concepts (N=9)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Conservation Breeding Research Education Entertainment
N u m b er o f m is si o n s ta te m en t
Characteristics of the surveyed institutions
The activities of seven of the institutions surveyed (44%) were started in the 2000s and of five (31%) in the 1990s. The oldest institution which answered was opened in 1969 while the youngest one started in 2008.
None of the institution provided an inventory of their animal collection but fourteen (88%) gave details about the number of species and the total number of animals maintained in their institution. The total number of species in each institution ranges from 6 to 421 species, with an average of 86 species per institution and a median of 48.5 species. The total number of animals ranges from 20 to 75 000 animals, with an average of 11 500 animals per institution and a median of 1 275 animals. Eleven institutions (79% out of 14) maintain mammals’ species and eleven (79%) birds’ species. Reptiles’ species are found in six institutions (43%) while amphibians, fishes and invertebrates are each found in three institutions (21%). Two institutions (14%) have representatives of the six taxa (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes and invertebrates) and three institutions (21%) are specialized in only one taxon.
Of the fourteen institutions which give details about their animal collection, nine (64%) have a collection which includes less than 25% of endangered species (categories ‘Vulnerable’, ‘Endangered’ and ‘Critically Endangered’ from IUCN). Four institutions (29%) have an animal collection with 25% to 50% endangered species and one institution has more than 75% endangered species within its collection.
The size occupied by the institutions surveyed varied from 0,002 km² (=2 000 m²) to 225 km² with an average of 26 km² and a median of 2 km². The only one aquarium which filled in a questionnaire was not taken into account for this parameter as the actual measure for such institution is more the number of litres within the tanks.
Seven institutions which answered the questionnaires (44%) are opened to the public while the nine remaining (56%) are not. From the seven which receive visitors, three institutions have less than 20 000 visitors per year, three have between 100 000 and 500 000 guests per year and one institution has more than 1 000 000 visitors every year.
Details about the annual budget were provided by ten institutions out of sixteen (63%). The annual budget of these institutions ranges from an equivalent of 10 000 € to 14 000 000 €, with an average of 1 800 000 € and a median of 375 000 €.
The total number of staff in each institution surveyed ranges from 4 to 800 persons per institution with an average of 122 staff per institution and a median of 39.5. The actual number of persons working in the zoological department of each institution was given for fifteen institutions. This number varies from 1 to 130 persons with an average of 29 and a median of 13 per institution. The number of zoological staff was linked with the total number of staff in each institution and it results in percentages from 7% (zoological staff out of total staff) to 100% with an average of 42% and a median of 35%.
Of the sixteen institutions surveyed, nine (56%) have a full time veterinarian on site who provide the veterinary care for the animals of the collection, five (31%) have a part time veterinarian, one institution calls in a domestic animals veterinarian in case of emergencies and one institution did not provide information to this question.
Confidentiality of the information provided in the filled questionnaire and willingness to share these data were asked in the last question of this second part of the questionnaire. Ten institutions (63%) answered that they are fully opened to the publication of the information they provided while three (19%) asked to keep confidential their annual budget. Finally, the remaining three (19%) stated their data as confidential. Nevertheless four institutions out of the ten which are fully opened (40%) did not mention their annual budget in the filled questionnaire.
Current activities of the surveyed institutions
ConservationTen institutions among the sixteen which did fill in a questionnaire (63%) state that they are participating in conservation projects in the wild while the six others are not. Four institutions mentioned ‘Financial support’ as a way of participation, six ‘Expertise’, eight ‘Research’ and finally six ‘Education’ (see Figure 4.4). Two institutions are helping in situ conservation by all four means.
Figure 4.4: Number of institutions which support conservation for each of the selected mean (N=10)
Nine institutions (90% out of ten) support programs which are running in the Middle East. Six of these institutions are helping programs only in this region while the three other institutions mention as well programs in the surroundings areas (Iran, East Africa and Maldives). Finally the last institution is only focusing its participation in regions outside the Middle East (America and Africa). Ten institutions (63%) take part in captive breeding programs. There is no direct overlap between the ten institutions which support in situ conservation and the ones which answered doing managed captive breeding.
Nine institutions give details about the level of population management they are taking part in. Five of these institutions are doing national cooperation, five institutions collaborate at the regional level (Middle East), five take part in the European breeding programs (EEP, ESB, etc.) and four are part of worldwide cooperation for captive breeding. Three institutions are limited to collaboration within the Middle East and not wider while the six others take part in European or worldwide programs.
Eight institutions detail the number of captive breeding programs they are part of. This number ranges from 1 to 20 programs per institution with an average of 9.25 programs and a median of 7.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Financial support Expertise Research Education
N u m b er o f in st it u ti o n s
A large majority of these programs are for species originated from the Middle East or from African regions. Mammals’ species are the primary focus, just followed by birds and reptiles. No amphibians, fishes or invertebrates managed programs were mentioned by the surveyed institutions but programs for these taxa are generally limited as well in other regions (Europe and North America for example). Nevertheless programs for these taxa at the level of one institution do exist in the Middle East.
Fifteen institutions (94% out of sixteen) are wishing to extend their activities in conservation (nine institutions) or start to work on this field (six institutions).
Research
Fourteen institutions among the surveyed institutions (88%) state that they are doing research. Of these fourteen, three institutions (21%) achieve research in the wild, seven (50%) in captivity and four (29%) in both fields.
The number of scientific publications staff from each surveyed institution authored or co-authored during the past five years was queried in the sent questionnaire. Three institutions (19% out of sixteen institutions) answer that their staff did not take part in any scientific publications during the past five years (these three do not include the two institutions which are not doing research), half of the institutions published between one and five items, three institutions (19%) between five and ten and two institutions (13%) were involved in more than ten scientific publications.
Fifteen institutions (94% out of sixteen) are wishing to extend their activities in research (thirteen institutions) or start to work on this field (two institutions).
Education
Nine institutions (56%) have an educational program within their institution. By means of education, the use of signs is mentioned by four institutions, shows and presentations by five institutions and school programs by seven institutions. Two institutions added furthermore that they organized regular guided tours.
Five institutions (31%) have special staff dedicated to education. Four detail the number of staff for this department which ranges from 2 to 25 persons.
Twelve institutions (75%) are willing to extend their activities in education (nine institutions) or start to work on this field (three institutions).
Current exchanges between the surveyed institutions
The existing national and international collaborations within the zoos in the Middle East were assessed throughout a set of questions. The number of exchanges between institutions per year is a first indicator of the level of existing collaboration. These exchanges may be of any kind, as exchange of information, exchange of animals, exchange of staff, etc. Of the sixteen institutions which did fill in the questionnaire, one (6%) has no current exchanges with other institutions in the region, eight institutions (50%) realize between one and five exchanges per year, five institutions (31%) between five and ten exchanges and two institutions (13%) more than ten exchanges per year. Apart from the amount of exchanges which are done, it is important to know where these exchanges happened and which country are concerned (see Figure 4.5). The United Arab Emirates was mentioned by 100% of the institutions which do exchanges. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Yemen are following in terms of number of exchanges and were mentioned by four institutions (27%) each. None of the institutions surveyed are doing exchanges with Iran and Iraq.
Figure 4.5: Number and geographical situation of the existing exchanges within the Middle East (N=15)
The very high frequency of mentions of The United Arab Emirates may be partly explained by the fact that 75% of the filled in questionnaires are coming from zoological institutions based in this country. National exchanges are often easier than exchanges among different countries. Nevertheless the four institutions situated outside The United Arab Emirates mentioned as well doing exchanges with this country.
There is only one zoological institution in Iraq and this country is just recovering from a difficult international situation, which may be linked to the fact that no exchange is currently occurring with this country. Iran has three confirmed zoological institutions but is geographically more isolated from the other countries in the Arabian Peninsula and is on the Asiatic mainland.
Four institutions of the sixteen surveyed (25%) are already member of an international zoo association (WAZA or EAZA). From preliminary research (see Chapter 3), we know that a total nine institutions in the region are already member of such international zoo associations (WAZA, EAZA, SEAZA and IZE).
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 N u m b er o f ex ch a n g es
Of the twelve surveyed which are not yet member of an international zoo association, eight (67%) are wishing to become member of such an organization. The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) was mentioned by two of them.
Six institutions of the sixteen surveyed (38%) are members of the International Species Information System (ISIS). This represents 86% of the seven members of this system in the region.
Conferences and workshops are an important tool of global collaboration, often used within the frame of associations. Staff of fourteen of the surveyed institutions (88%) attended at least one of such a meeting during the last three years. Twelve institutions (86%) mentioned meetings in the Middle East, eight (57%) in Europe and one (7%) in another part of the world (namely South Africa). Six of the institutions attended meetings only in the Middle East and not outside of the region.
Potential of a zoo association in the Middle East
After all the preliminary questions about basic characteristics of the institution and existing collaboration, the last part of the questionnaire focuses on the potential of a zoo association in the Middle East.
The sixteen institutions surveyed (100%) considered that a regional zoo association in the Middle East would be useful. None of the institutions think that it would be generally irrelevant but some comments were made about possible reasons for unsuitability or difficulty. One institution mentioned that a regional association would be irrelevant because no use (this same institution replied nevertheless at the previous question that such an association would be useful). Another institution informed that such an association would be irrelevant because there are already existing international associations (this institution is not yet member of such an organization but is willing to be part of one). The complexity to create and put into practice a regional zoo association in the Middle East was put forward by three institutions. Finally possible apathy and the importance to be relevant and adapt to the special expectations and needs of local zoological institutions were mentioned as well. In a logical consequence of the above statement about total usefulness of a regional association, the sixteen institutions (100%) would consider to become member of a regional zoo association if such a one would exist. One institution mentioned nevertheless that financial reason may prevent it to participate and two others were warning about possible political reasons which could limit their involvement. It is important to quote that the statements “No necessity for cooperation” and “Cooperation already in place within other framework” were not chosen by any institution.
Different kinds of membership could be used in zoo association. The most common one among existing international associations is membership by institution. On a more limited scale, some other associations went for a personal membership in which staff of a zoological institution may become member of the association. The opinion of the surveyed institutions was asked in this matter and fourteen (88%) answered that an institutional association in which the membership is by institution would be the most suitable for a possible association in the region. One institution (6%) would prefer an association in which staffs are members. Finally one institution mentioned that a combination of both kinds of memberships could be an option.
By being member of a regional framework, zoological institutions would expect to gain benefits and advantages from this position. To be able to satisfy these expectations, it is important to know in advance which they are and to set up the association keeping them in mind. Six main possible benefits were defined and it was asked to each institution for which they would expect help from a regional zoo association (see Figure 4.6). ‘Exchange of information’ was mentioned the most (fourteen institutions, 88%) just followed by ‘Exchange of animals’, ‘Conference/workshop’ and ‘International connection with worldwide association’ quoted by twelve institutions (75%) each. Logically ‘Exchange of information’ is the field in which institutions (fifteen of them, 94%) would give the most support. ‘Exchange of animals’, ‘Conference/workshop’ and ‘Technical assistance’ are the three following branch supported by potential members of a regional association.
‘Exchange/training of staff’ appears to be the least category in which institutions would expect benefit or give support. Nevertheless 63% of the surveyed institutions hope to benefit in this matter and 50% would give the support, which are both still high percentages. The conclusion could be than the six defined fields are all of high importance for a potential zoo association in the region.
Figure 4.6: Numbers of institutions which would expect benefit or give support from and to a regional zoo association in the Middle East (N=16)
From this question, some comments were added in the filled in questionnaires. One institution surveyed hopes that a regional zoo association would help to improve the zoological facility standards in the region. Furthermore one institution added that it would support a zoological community with exchange of animals only under certain conditions, which comes across the previous comment. Finally one institution in the region also proposed to support the potential association by providing a secretariat.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 N u m b er o f in st it u ti o n s Benefit Support
